Been a while... · 8:16pm Jul 26th, 2021
Hi folks. How are you doing? Been a while. I like to imagine in the great solar system that if FimFic I'm some trans-Neptunian object that only occasionally comes into view intermittently before wandering out to the cold antipodes of space to which I belong. Personally life has been the same. Some original writing. Glacial progress on Homelands, but its not dead. I'm going to be at EFNW in august and hope to see folks around. It'll be nice to see folks before G5 lands and we all either fall in love with it or 'they changed it, it stinks' and nope out. Hope for the former, rather than the latter.
But as I wander back into the closer orbits of FimFiction, it seems I've arrived in time for a bit of controversy regarding 'foalcon' and the call to 'ban it in all its forms'. Which would mean banning my work as well. "What do you mean? You're not a foalcon writer." No, I'm not, but I do have two paragraphs in one chapter in which one character who is pretty young has sex with someone that's not. It's not graphic. There's no floods of semen. But it happens, because I wrote it. Because said older character points out 'this kid is NOT OKAY and you need to DEAL WITH THIS NOW.' And she does. And that's why the scene is there.
Now could I have done something else? Sure. I could have had her cutting herself. I could have had her wanting to play with the guy's guns. But neither would have been in character for that character. And so I wrote what was true to that character in that moment in order to get the pair to interact and further the plot. Now I can be fairly criticized for that choice, and have been in the past. But I wrote it. It's there. I won't pretend its not. But does writing that mean I'm interested in that? Well I have also written murder, theft, lying, genocide, and apotheosis. Does that mean I am interested in all that too? Probably not.
"But Somber, we're not talking about your story. We're talking about lewd foalcon stories." Ah. I see.
I've never read Cupcakes, did you know that? I mean, you'd think I have. It's been recommended to me many times. But it's not a story I like. I don't like stories that present mental illness as giggling slasher mania. As someone that's wrestled with mental illness myself all my life, when someone presents a psychopath and justifies it as 'oh, they're just CRAZY' I feel insulted, because it's not actually mental illness but how the author thinks mental illness works, or the author knows and chooses to ignore it.
So do I get to ban Cupcakes? Seriously, if you get to ban lewd foalcon stories you don't like, do I get to ban stories I don't like? Let's say I'm really irrational and want to ban Enchanted Library because I feel the relationship between Twilight and Rarity is exploitative. Do I get to ban one of the best stories written ever because I personally don't like it? Because I had a read and because of my personal experiences I think it's wrong and inappropriate and therefore should be banished from the site?
"But we don't want to ban it because we don't like it! We want to ban it because it's bad!" Ah. The cry of the censor.
There is only one reason to ban a creative work: if it is illegal. That's it. Comply with the law, and change bad law. But if it is not, then it should not be banned. The law requires these stories to be behind an age verification, and they are.
"These stories groom minors." I seriously doubt that. Because even a cursory glance at the internet shows a vast ocean of porn, much of it between people of inappropriate ages, and if such stories did groom minors we'd have pre-teens flinging themselves at adults wantonly. The argument that written erotica encourages sexual promiscuity has been trotted out for centuries, and is employed today every day by people who want to 'ban the bad'.
"These stories are icky!" I agree. That's why I don't read them. I don't read gore, snuff, or anything with zebras either. Filthy filthy stripes... You have every right not to read what you don't like.
"These stories hurt and upset me." I understand. Either don't read them, or do, and share your experiences. Point out how the author might have gotten something wrong. Explain the flaws in the writer's logic. Change minds.
"These stories encourage X and X is WRONG!" Then by that argument, every story depicting murder advocates for murder. Every story depicting theft advocates for theft. It is possible to depict and explore X without advocating or condemning X. And if you think X is 'inappropriate sexual ages' you'd be wrong. X can be anything, from that to healthy gay relationships. The knife cuts for EVERYONE.
"This is horrible in real life!" Yes, it absolutely is. I speak from experience. But the purpose of fiction isn't to advocate for every idea to be actualized but to explore ideas and to question ideas. To challenge preconceptions. That is the only way ideas can change and grow. And in order for that to happen, we have to talk about these ideas, even if we don't want them.
"I just want it to go away."
Sigh...
It never goes away, and expecting it to is profoundly arrogant and foolish.
Imagine if gay stories were banned because some powerful people wanted it banned. Would they go away? Would the authors just stop writing? Would gayness just stop happening? History tells us no. And so to expect the same to happen because you dislike 'foalcon' is to simply put yourself in the censors of yester year. It's bad because you don't like it, and you don't like it because it's bad.
"GASP! But Somber, surely you're not advocating for it, are you?!" No. Minors lack the cognitive development to make romantic decisions and the balance of power between an adult and minor is not equal. That is the law and rule of the land today. It may be the law and rule of the land in perpetuity, for all I know. Or it may be that in the future someone signs a document and they're sexually viable regardless of their age. And someone will go 'Oh, that's icky and I don't like it!' and they will be chastised as easily as we would chastise someone opposed to gay relationships today. Ideas change, grow, adapt, and retreat but they do not go away just because they're silenced.
The topic of censorship isn't easy or clean cut, and what might be obvious to you as wrong or immoral might not be so to someone else. The only way to reach a resolution is through talking. Preferably without insults, but some people gotta people, and if that's who you are, so be it. And there may not BE a resolution at this time. There may not be a resolution EVER. But that doesn't mean that banning is ever the answer. Feel free to flag content. Feel free to add additional check boxes to verify age and 'do you REALLY wanna read this?' But do not try to silence the ideas of others. It has never worked.
Take care.
take care too and i am doing well.
those people, they don't think much. Only because we write or hint it, doesn't maen we would do it in real life.
I got harassed by those guys just because of my bio a while ago
The thing that got people upset about the story that triggered this wasn't that it was foalcon.
The inciting factor was that it was a clear-cut apologetic for IRL pedophilia, painting it as justified and potentially a good thing.
The cherry on top was that it tried to coopt Pride Month as a cover, arguing that pedophilia was just another totally valid orientation under the LGBT umbrella.
This wasn't about people merely not liking the story. It was about the politics offered up by a story that, in complete straight-faced seriousness, tried to say adults entering into romantic / sexual relationships with children was okay because "no one can tell you who you're allowed to love," and meant it in an IRL sense.
5560438
Sure, and I can understand the outrage of that. There's plenty there to disagree with.
So disagree with it. Take their story and write a more realistic version of how such exchanges go. Link data to any study that supports your position. Give your own personal account.
I understand the story was submitted under E and I have no problem with it being reassigned to M. That's curation. But don't ban it simply because it has ideas that are distressing, disturbing, or wrong.
And if his point was "No one can tell you who you're allowed to love" the counter point is "You are not allowed to let 'love' justify sexual relations with a minor." I don't doubt the author feels that way. I don't agree with it, but that's something they feel and believe in as much as a someone else might feel a man loving a man is okay, or a white woman loving a non-white person is okay, or loving someone poorer than you is okay.
And like I said, in 50 years, laws might change as to what does and doesn't constitute a minor. You might need to take a test to become 'sexually available' at 14 or 40. But right now, yeah, that's illegal and love doesn't override the law.
But imagine it's 1970's and it's a story of two gay dudes.
Imagine it's 1950's and it's a story of a white woman loving a non-white man.
The outrage is always very real and very legitimate... until it's not.
So yes, disagree, say he's wrong, argue the point, and accept that he may not change his views in an exchange in the comments section. Ideas should be challenged and refined. Silencing them and demonizing them just puts you in the same category of those that would silence and demonize things you think are just fine. Love, even.
5560438
shut up
Y'all aren't happy to have only killed someone?
Strange how many people don't get this. I've ran across MANY fics that contained "X", and "X" is a thing I don't like. In some cases, like it or not it adds to the story and just wouldn't be the same without it. In others, where it just seems to be shoehorned in, I just close the book and move on to another. It's fiction, what 'is happening' isn't really happening, but some people seem to think otherwise. Banning things in fiction shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Sure, i would find a fic here all about foals getting it on with adults to be completely tasteless and would make me wonder about the author a bit, but as long as fiction is where it remains no wrong is being done.
5560448
No, it really really doesn't.
This is just the classic "the people who don't want Nazis in their community are the REAL Nazis! What about my FREEZE PEACHES!?!" bad-faith argument that Nazis love to use.
5560449
Really? I post a blog about censorship and you tell someone to shut up? Are you trying to force me to irony?
Disagree with ideas please.
The furry community had this phase a few years back so I speak from experience that every voice of reason helps, glad to see that the brony community has its share of intellectual individuals
I'm just stopping by to say that there is a huge, huge inherent difference between a gay relationship between two men of age or of two people of different racial backgrounds, and pedophilia.
Homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a problem as long as it's between two consenting adults. I don't care what people do in their bedroom as long as there is clear consent.
Pedophilia does not involve consent because one party is too young to give that consent and is being manipulated into said sexual acts, or even forced physically. Regardless, it's a form of molestation/sexual abuse.
Homosexuality is not sexual abuse.
I hope that clears things up for you.
EDIT: For the record, I don't particularly care whether or not knighty elects to ban foalcon, but I do know he won't. I'm strictly referring to real life pedophilia.
5560449
You must have missed the part where PRINCESS CADANCE said they couldn't do it and instead opted to delete their account. They're not dead lol.
5560457
And 50 years ago, it WAS a big deal. To some people today, it is STILL a big deal. Yes, there are people who still want to ban things like Brokeback Mountain, and if they could, they would. But personally I agree with your argument. BOTH of them in fact. But I recognize that just because I disagree with their ideas doesn't mean they shouldn't be expressed or explored. Art exists to provoke ideas, and the moment I say 'No, that is too far' is the moment someone can say to me 'No, that is too far.'
"Homosexuality is not sexual abuse." There are people who would adamantly disagree with that statement. I would argue against them.
"Pedophilia is sexual abuse." That is your statement. I personally split hairs and say "Sex with a minor is sexual abuse." But there are arguments that can be made against that statement. The value is in the discussion. It's very easy to make blanket statements... and it's very easy to poke holes in them.
If I were to poke a hole in it it would be "How we determine what constitutes 'sexual maturity' is unclear, arbitrary, inconsistent, and needs more formal declaration than simply an age on a birth certificate." This is what art is for. To explore and challenge preconceptions, and yes, to fail.
You know, at the time the chapter in question had came out, I myself didn't like that particular scene, but I understood WHY it happened, that it was in character for Scotch to do that in that situation, and if anything I was more upset about what could have been going through Bastard's head (at least I think so, I'm to lazy to browse through Cloudsville forums to search how I actually commented on that
).
It sometimes surprised me that people don't get that, that it's more important for a character to stay in character and do thinks in character rather than story being "nice". This is post-nuclear war setting, why would things be nice?! But I digress...
I agree on that whole ban debacle. A few months ago there was a whole uproar about that Nazi pony thing and I'm not mistaken it had resulted with people being unable to comment and like/dislike on stories with her? Dunno if since then anything more happened, I f***ing hate Nazis so I didn't check up on those stories if they were removed or not. But anyway, at the same time I am against limiting creative writting so I was upset about those limitations. Now this about foalcon (which I actually didn't know was happening; where do you even check out for news like those?
) is the same thing all over. I admit I don't know what exactly had caused this to start now, but still...
(Also, fun fact, back when people were upset about the Nazi thing, I recall reading a blog post of one of the users here I follow who were speaking for banning them and saying how nazism is evil - which it is, duh - and those stories promote this evil way of thining and all that ... and I recall thinking to myself: "... You know there are stories on this website that are about rape and sex with minors, sometimes both, right? Wouldn't those stories by your logic also promote those things and it should be even more important to ban them than those Nazi stories?")
(Another fan fact, a few months ago a similar thing was happening in my country, except as far as I know it was only about sex in general. Some private high school had extra lectures for their pupils to pick from for their lessons, and among those were few which had "erotic scenes" and one conservative politician - we had a buttload of those - go all uppity.)
Anyway, glad to see you poke in over here, I don't often check my patreon account so I sometimes miss your posts over there^^ Hope you have fun at EFNW, wish I could attend but living in Europe and having bit reluctance/borderline fear of traveling kinda makes it difficult
Maybe some day.
5560453
And the response to that argument is "Fascism is based on a lie: that an ethnic group are stronger and entitled and are somehow being denied and victimized by the "weaker" non-ethnic group via some kind of nefarious act and power. your argument requires a willful self deception independent of any objective evidence. Because of this cognitive disconnect, you can't argue the actual basis of your claim, because you lack evidence, and are therefore simply causing turmoil to distract from this fact. You've made a number of assumptions and preconceptions that have likely been inferred into you based on the media you consume and the communities you inhabit."
"We have every desire to have an argument and discussion, but that argument must be based on factual evidence, not imagined grievances. If you wish to present an idea and argument with evidence, so be it, but if you are merely using your perceived injustice as an excuse to agitate without direction, then you will be shown the door." And then you ban them when they insist on being asshats.
I agree that argument of tolerating fascisms is extremely toxic and dangerous. The counter, however, is not banning it. It's tackling head on that it's concepts are not based in reality. Fascists have swallowed a lie. They have built their identity upon that lie. The lie will not solve their problems or better their condition, and so they're going to suffer so long as they continue to labor under this lie.
Didnāt even know this discussion was going on but yeah, pretty much agree with what your saying. Only thing I donāt really like is how easy it is for minors to find porn on this site as itās just a quick mature settings click away which isnāt hard to find. Though I guess you could say that about being online in general.
I dunno maybe put a couple more walls in place to access super mature stories like that. But thatās just me personally.
But yeah, donāt think we should ban this stuff, as long as people are in the right mind to separate fiction from reality (which is most people Iād hope) then it shouldnāt be a problem.
5560469
The best way to counter fascism is to talk about fascism. Saying fascism is bad is not good enough. Children go smoking exactly because adults tell them it's bad and don't want to discuss it.
We don't resolve something by not talking about it. We should talk about everything: fascism, pedophilia, rape and capital punishment. All is fair game. Talking doesn't hurt. Writing stories doesn't hurt.
Censorship is the exact opposite of all that.
5560449 5560461 Is Princess Cadence Near by any chance?
http://web.archive.org/web/20210709001421/https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1409494303244656644
5560466
So I have a personal principle against banning things as well, and that is because banning things doesn't make them go away. You don't make a fascist less fascist through isolation. You just consign them to the echo chamber. That's not actually going to help. And sure, you could make the argument that it protects others from interacting with them, but that's a horribly risky assumption, because they might find an outlet that you didn't account for.
The better action is to attack the ideas head on, and to inform others so that they're resistant to bad ideas. It won't work 100% of the time, and it can backfire. I have to acknowledge that. But it's a better approach than simply silencing and assuming the problem just goes away.
5560477
No, a quick read shows that this is about someone entirely different that was harassed by a community known as Kiwi Farms.
My stance is this: I don't agree with banning things unless their real-life people. But I feel being the judge for liking certain genres is okay.
I appreciate this post. I like to think that most well adjusted individuals can agree that pedophilia and child exploitation is bad, but the banning of content -especially when said content is in a form that does not cause physical harm- is not a path down which we should tread. The problem is that some people will say "this is enough" and even if many people agree that it is there will always be those who say "it is not far enough".
Today we may agree with a ban, tomorrow we may be able to justify the next, but there will come a day when it encroaches on what you find valuable. Many will argue that this constitutes the 'slippery slope fallacy', and when I was younger I would have agreed, but I find that argument to be laughable when I have lived long enough to see it happening. Much like mice and cookies, when you give a group --or a government-- a power they do not give it up.
Truly, The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Instead what I have seen is the most destructive is when something is done "for our own good". There has been a trend this last decade to protect people from ideas and speech, especially with things like trigger warnings. I believe that these overtures were made with the best of intentions, that it was proposed to protect fragile individuals, but it is counterintuitive to find that it only weakens them.
My own sister in law suffered from anxiety and panic attacks. They got so bad that, no joke, one was triggered by a plastic bag on the side of the road. People like that, who are effected by anxiety to such a degree, are tempted to withdraw into a safe space and avoid their 'triggers'. But this is not the way to healing. Cognitive behavioral therapy is one of the premier therapies for PTSD. Rather than avoiding traumatizing content it instead works to progressively expose the individual to them until the stimulus loses its power. Rather than attempt to make the world less threatening, and perpetually leave the individual in a vulnerable state, it is better to strengthen them until they can overcome.
Just like a muscle, we are anti-fragile. That which does not break us makes us stronger.
But that cannot happen without a stone against which we can hone ourselves. Removing small challenges only leaves us vulnerable when a large one comes our way. The same can be said for language. Without exposing ourselves to what is truly heinous we lose sight of it and attenuate ourselves to a lower threshold. Take racism in this country today. Some would see the statement "I don't want to date a black guy" and find it to be abhorrent, but while I find this distasteful I would argue that they lack the context of what is truly vile. Back in our history we had lynchings as near public entertainment. In South Africa today there are instances of Necklacings for racial hatred and similarly unspeakably barbaric and brutal acts of human violence simply because one is an other. We must strengthen ourselves so that we are able to face true darkness when it comes.
So I do not mean to minimize people's pain, it is an intensely personal thing, but removing all we find to be abhorrent will weaken us in two ways: it will leave us unable to deal with true darkness when it once again rears it's ugly head, and it will cause us to forever be eating away at ourselves like the serpent ouroboros.
TL:DR - Censorship is usually good people with good intentions, but it is a cycle that never ends. One day it will destroy what you hold dear.
5560438
QRD? What was the story people were getting pissed about?
5560463
Not only that... the concept of "statutory rape" is, by its very definition, based on "statute"; in other words, established law. Which really has no meaning at all in these post-apocalyptic wastelands we write about.
Honestly, whether it's good or bad is irrelevant; plenty of people write stories about bad things. I know you set that part of the story up as a trigger for discussion and worry among the characters; not at all as glorification of such an act.
Look around the world for age of consent, and it's already widely varying anyway. And the US in particular has a very unhealthy attitude when it comes to shielding minors from any and all sexual content, which, honestly, is completely unnatural. I'm fairly sure that kids in the middle ages, very often living in one-room houses, knew what their parents got up to in the evening, And it only made them more aware of how the world worked.
5560477
Literally not how that works at all. People start smoking because of 1. the inertia that smoking used to (and to a lesser degree still does) have in cultural ubiquity, and 2. because tobacco companies advertise. This is pretty well established market research fact.
The thing is, there's a HUGE difference between talking about fascism/pedophilia vs. letting fascists and pedophiles run amok with bad-faith talking points meant to propagandize. You're not getting that difference.
No one's even saying we "shouldn't talk about" those things, anyway. They're suggesting that maybe we shouldn't do the latter, letting the propagandist apologists trick the vulnerable into believing obviously harmful things are "good, actually." We can and do accomplish the former, simply talking about these things, through things like history books, responsibly produced documentaries, and academic studies by experts in the subject matter who can present them without untoward bias and without a recruitment agenda.
Talking and writing stories does hurt when bad people are doing it in bad faith. Propaganda works, and frighteningly well. Again, that's not an opinion, that's validated fact and very well-studied. Letting Nazis into your community creates more Nazis because Nazis lie, and they use their lies to recruit.
Ah, I hope EFNW goes excellently for you! I expect to be on the other side of the continent, alas -- but perhaps next year, I'll be able to make it.
And aye, I'm still pretty optimistic on G5. Could be terrible! But I've not seen any dealbreakers for me so far, I have seen things I'm at least interested in finding out more about, and the reactions I've seen so far from others seem to have been mostly positive-leaning interest or the like.
"Take care."
Thanks, and again, take care yourself. :)
(As for the rest of the post... Yeeeah, sorry, but I've other things to do today and do not want to risk wading into this in the comments section. Good luck down there!
Er. "here", I guess, once this posts. But you know what I mean.)
Thanks for this, Somber.
It is genuinely quite concerning how popular the idea of censorship is getting.
It is good to know that there are some people who still think that the best disinfectant is sunlight.
5560696 I doubt a few shitty pony stories will start the Fourth Reich. If it does, I'll eat my words. You're hyper-analizing this to death in a way that, frankly, makes no sense.
Also: The stigma around smoking causes rebellion. Propaganda only works if they offer you something you want. In example: you want to rebel and have freedom, tobacco companies key in on that and use it to sell their product. You won't buy in unless you want it. Propaganda only works if it promises something you want and you are gullible enough to say, "yes."
5560448
Nah. When someone does something that intentionally hurtful to your community, you do what the group admins did and tell them to hit the bricks. Especially when they had, at the time, multiple screeds on journal about how people needed to rally and prove foalcon was as valid as any LGBT work.
That particular author then going on to say they were going to base their decision to live on that story's reception and making suicidal posts because their belief in the positive presentation of the sexual abuse of child characters was forcefully rejected was entirely what they intended when they posted it.
It was pure bad faith from the start.
5560740
No one drop of rain is responsible for all the effects of the rainstorm, but without the aggregate contributions of all those drops, there's no storm at all.
That's a cultural myth we've created to avoid acknowledging the uncomfortable fact that kids learn bad habits because of their cultural presence just as much as good ones. Out of everyone I've ever known who smoked, "I wanna rebel!" was never their reason. Their reason was a combination of access to cigarettes, advertising, and enjoying the effects of nicotine.
So you're saying propaganda works.
Promising people something they want is absurdly easy.
"Gullible enough to say yes" is self-evident in this thread: it's full of people who have bought into the arguments of something closer to free speech absolutism (although that's not in itself gullibility, I think - there are some legitimate points favoring it that can be argued by good-faith actors), and Nazis and pedos will and absolutely do key in on that fact and co-opt it to deliberately erase any sense of nuance between neutral discussion vs. heavily colored propaganda and serve up shitty bad-faith arguments for why you "have to" tolerate their presence and their recruitment pitches in your community.
And it works: they're here, and plenty of people are fighting to keep them here.
Yeah, look: a story that frames wanting to have sex with someone underage as okay is bad, most of the people who complain about being censored are just trying to get out of the consequences of their own bad behavior, and your ability to be condescending doesn't change any of that.
5560695
I mean I wasn't talking about his story and I specifically said in my comment I wasn't talking about foalcon.
I was talking about real life and I'd be really worried if someone even tried to look for a way that a 20 year old and 12 year old dating isn't reprehensible. I couldn't care less if foalcon gets banned because it's an art form, but PRINCESS CADANCE wanted pedophilic desires to become a part of PRIDE, which is absolutely horrible, and they deserved all the backlash they got.
5560760
Dear gods, yes, that's pretty reprehensible
5560749
And I can use the exact, same argument to dismiss banning homosexual or interracial stories. In fact, what is bad about a story about wanting? Most stories are about EXACTLY that: wanting something they can't have / get. And stories should provoke thought and emotion. One could argue that's what stories are for. If they never actually have sex, the amount of wanting is irrelevant. Wanting is not a crime. Doing is a crime. However, the assumption is that if a person wants that, they will do that, which is nonsense. I may be angry with a person. I may even want to kill them. I may even kill them in my head. Does that make me a murderer? No.
5560743
Intentionally hurtful. Interesting. I haven't seen the exchanges, so I have to wonder what was the argument that was raised against them? Was it 'You're wrong. You're bad. It's icky and think of the children? Shut up and go away?' Because that's not a very compelling argument. Now if the rancor was unmanageable, then yes, there's a practical argument for banning them. Communities have rules and need order and not everywhere or every medium is ideal for discussion, but I don't know if that was the case or not.
Personally, my argument would be that it doesn't matter if a person wants that, it's illegal because it leads to the harm of minors. It doesn't matter if it is an orientation, because for a relationship to be valid, both have to be able to enter it as relative equals and depart the relationship when desired. And if they couldn't refute that argument, but persisted, then I'd dismiss and ignore them. But I wouldn't call them bad. Unfortunate or cursed, perhaps, but I would support any outlet that didn't involve actual sexual interaction with a minor.
5560760
If they aren't having sex, which is illegal, what's wrong with it? The answer is, of course, that most children don't have economic, emotional, physical, or educational experience to detect and avoid manipulation. We also do not determine such capability or maturity by any level of examination but by arbitrary age which may or may not reflect the individual's maturity. There are people eighteen and older who still aren't mature enough that I'm comfortable with them having sex with someone that may be decades older and more established than they are, but the assumption is 'you reach age x and you are the equivalent of someone aged x+n'. If the 12 yr old is economically, emotionally, physically, and educationally capable of stating no to the 20 yr old, where's the problem? I agree the likelihood of that is extremely low, but it's not not zero.
But more over, why shouldn't it be a part of the LGBTQ+ community? The answer is, and you won't like it, but that gays of all stripes are accused of being pedophiles. I also know why the argument that it's an orientation is so disturbing to you. That's the LGBTQ+ rationalization that sexual desire is not a choice but a natural inclination. So if some people have a natural inclination towards minors, it undermines that whole argument. Thus you HAVE to react to it, which is why so many gays are given that accusation.
A better response is to say 'Yeah, we may not agree with it, and we don't want them to do it, and we'll work our asses off to help them find any outlet we can that's not an actual kid, but we support everyone in their sexuality. If someone has a pedophile orientation, I'd rather they jerk off to artwork and stories than ever have sex with a kid. Writing a story or doing art hurts nobody, and if that's their methadone, so be it. As far as their orientation though, we'll try to get them psychological help, coping mechanisms, and other outlets that do not involve sex with actual minors.'
And with that, you achieve two things: a demonstration of commitment to values and ideals of inclusivity and a sabotage of the accusation that you are this horrible thing. You also help protect actual children by throwing people with that orientation a lifeline and outlet. If it's okay to talk about that desire somewhere, it becomes easier to deal with it. That was the case for the LGBT movement for the last 50 years (and still ongoing) and I predict it will be the future of the moment for the next fifty. LGBTQIA will become LGBTQIAP. And sure, conservatives and normies will still hate you for it, but so what? If the LGBT argument is 'this is who we are and there's nothing wrong with it so long as it is safe, consensual, and mutual.' then that gets extended to everyone. You just have to carve out that actually having sex with minors is unacceptable.
Honestly, this isn't an argument I didn't expect to be having. I'm bisexual. I'm IN that tent. If some one told me they wanted to, I'd try to listen. If some one told me they were going to, I'd report them. But I'd never call them a horrible person, because I've had that very same accusation laid on me. I don't know what Princess Cadence's argument was, but I do know that if it was a bad argument, they should have been given a good argument, not backlash. Backlash never helped anyone. (seriously, it's a reactionary response by definition.)
5560830
You're picking a very strange hill to die on, man. Not only have I not once said that I believe foalcon should be banned, I've also not said anything about the statutes regarding age of consent in different locations.
Having the ability to say the word "no" has nothing to do with economics, so I don't know why that was thrown in, but it also has nothing to do with how mature someone is. When I was 12, I knew to say no to weird ass adults that wanted to do things with me. Luckily that never happened. Again, there is absolutely no scenario where a 20 year old and a 12 year old should be having sexual relations, let alone dating.
I never said anything about that.
No, it never should become part of the pride movement because nobody should ever take pride in the fact that they are attracted to children. The point of LGBT+ is to raise awareness for people who have an orientation or identity that, while not in the majority, should be accepted. Pedophilia should not be accepted, it should be beaten back by the people diagnosed with it because it is wrong.
You seem to keep misconstruing what I am saying, so I'll just say it again. Pedophilia in real life is wrong, full stop.
5560830
puu.sh/HZxfw.jpg
5560830
... sweetie, you can't make it a crime to want or not want something, because you can never legally prove or disprove that someone wants or doesn't want something. That doesn't mean any want you could ever have is somehow healthy, nor does it mean other people have to put up with it.
5560830
Furthermore, there isn't a time or place where a child has the intelligence maturity or context to give informed consent, so even if we pretend wanting to have sex for the kid is okay, which we have no reason to, it still wouldn't be a part of lgbtq because it's a desire to do exploit someone else, as opposed to loving them
Well, he's right about that
5560830
It was specifically a Pride and Positivity story contest intended to be for stories presenting LGBT+ characters in positive ways : https://www.fimfiction.net/group/214981/pride-and-positivity
You can find the story in question here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210630175651/https://www.fimfiction.net/story/498096/our-voices-matter-too
It is, as far as I know, rated E so you shouldn't have clop to worry about but it's also a story about an adult Sweetie Belle agreeing to enter a romantic relationship with an explicitly eleven year old child she has a position of authority over as she has been giving vocal lessons to; submitted to a contest for positive LGBT stories by an author whose back catalog was full of explicit adult-and-child-character sex and whose blog posted around the same time was about how stories of sex with child characters are being unfairly stigmatized on this site.
The group admins' reaction was entirely predictable and warranted. They removed a bad-faith entry, and blocked the author from submitting further fics to the group. The other users' reaction was also predictable, given the subject matter and external issues relevant.
One of the great and sometimes terrible parts of freedom of speech is the necessary corollary that others are free to respond to your speech with their own honest opinions.
Welcome back! Can't wait for more homelands!
I've been getting my F.O.E fix reading about Blackjack's therapy in FOE: Speak.
5560841
š Best reply.
5560836
My hill is that argument should be countered by argument, not by fiat ban. Something can absolutely be wrong, but if it is wrong, it should be demonstrated wrong rather than appeals to common sense (which are simply biases), or self evident arguments which are no arguments at all. If I say something is wrong, I usually have an argument as to why it is wrong. That is a hill that I will die on.
The economic dimension is the adult has the ability to buy and make money and live independently. The child likely doesn't, be it they don't own property in their name, are unable to hold a job, or rent / buy property, etc. The child might be some kind of hyper mature savant, but there would still be disproportionately disadvantaged simply because they lack income and the ability to leave and live independently.
Saying you can't imagine a scenario is an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't imagine one doesn't mean it's a good argument. If there was a super intelligent, super mature, super responsible, super aware child savant who was also independently wealthy... a 'child' that is mature every other sense besides age IS functionally an adult... then were is the objection? Could such a child exist? Odds are no. Possibly even never. But it's not impossible unless you demonstrate that impossibility or so redefine adulthood and maturity as to determine it. Is "Adult" eighteen orbits of the sun? Is it a state of neural development? Is it acquisition of specific knowledge or skills? We currently default to the first one. That doesn't mean we will always do so.
Correct. You didn't. I did,
"no man should ever take pride in the fact that they are attracted to other men." Your argument, reframed. An argument made TODAY against YOU. And more over, you're using the exact same rhetoric as those who make that argument. They state that you should be ashamed to have that attraction. You say pedophiles should be ashamed to have that attraction too. Shame is one of the greatest, most insidious tools used against LGBT folks. That's why PRIDE exists at all. It's a direct refutation of shame.
"The point of LGBT is to raise awareness for people who have an orientation or identity that, while not in the majority, should be accepted." Again, this argument can be extended to pedophiles as well. It's not a good argument.
"Pedophilia should not be accepted, it should be beaten back by the people diagnosed with it because it is wrong. You seem to keep misconstruing what I am saying, so I'll just say it again. Pedophilia in real life is wrong, full stop." You haven't made an argument as to why it is wrong. I mean you can appeal to authority and say it's illegal, or you can appeal to popularity and say everyone says its wrong, but that's not an ethical or moral argument. Even arguing that it is implicitly harmful is flawed because, shocking I know, there are testimonials of people who DID have sex with adults as minors and didn't regard it as abusive then or now. So this is a complex problem.
But more to the point: what is your goal, personally? Do you not want pedophilia associated with the LGBTQ movement, do you not want pedophiles to exist, do you not want children predated, all three? Something else? Because whatever your goal is, you should check your arguments and see "Do my arguments support my goals?" If they don't, you're going to need better arguments. And I hope you find and have them. But if you don't, you have a problem, either with your goals or with the assumptions your basing those goals on.
5560841
I talk too much. This is true. :)
5560842
A pedophile desires sex with a minor. As you said, a want is not a crime. Now why do they want that? Maybe they're a sexual predator. There's evidence for that argument. Maybe they have an orientation. Maybe they were a victim. Maybe they're emotionally compromised. Pretending all these are the same is a bit disingenuous. Personally, I would rather provide ANY outlet or therapy that is NOT actually having sex with a child. Like if we could give a lolibot to a pedophile to prevent them from pursuing sex with a minor, great! But that requires, literally, us putting up with it. Or at the very least engaging the discussing and recognizing that if the goal is preventing a crime from taking place, other outlets should be considered.
5560845
Again, you can't know that, because you don't know every child. I agree, likelihood is extremely low. It's not zero unless you somehow demonstrated an incapability. But that requires definitions of maturity more complex than just X years old. So unless you demonstrate that incapability, trying to omit pedophilia from LGBTQ is a losing proposition. Every time some priest molests someone, the normies are going to trot out 'LGBTQ are pedophiles' It's a categorical error, but if that argument is invalid against LGBTQ, you using the same argument doesn't magically invalidates it.
Which is why a better position is to accept that it is a non-traditional sexual identity, that it should not be condemned simply for having, but that it should NOT permit it to be performed for X,Y, and Z reasons with a child. By extending grudging support, you can then point at said priest and go 'See, THAT'S the problem. Not that he's a pedophile, but that he gave in." And that encourages other pedophiles NOT to give in. And if your goal is preventing molestation, that's a more worthwhile argument. The optics are radioactive as fuck, but it's more solid rhetorical ground.
5560860
Thanks for posting the story. Again, after reading it, it's fine. It's a story about inappropriate attraction. I think they're presenting Luster dawn as 'precociously mature prodigy' and she has a crush on Sweetie. It's a good START. The story should then have Sweetie and Luster reflect on their feelings in isolation and tackle the question of is it appropriate or not. That's what good stories are made of: challenging preconceptions. If I were writing it, Sweetie would have a conversation with Rarity, Rarity would be deeply alarmed and caution her against it, and Sweetie would finally acknowledge that she's lonely and projecting her emotions and attractions on Luster, and that Luster is intelligent and learning and has a crush on Sweetie, and that romance is something she will learn... but not right now. And then I'd end there. Because the crime isn't in the wanting, but in the doing. Not a story I ever would write, but it was hardly what I expected.
I don't think it was bad faith, but I can see how it would be deemed mature, even if nothing sexual happened, and I can understand removing that member from their group. Communities got rules and need to keep order. But no. I think that this honestly disturbs people because it's NOT written as pornographic. Like if it was just for wank material, whatever. Porn has no cultural value. But this story invited argument. You yourself present a good one: Sweetie is her vocal coach. That's a position of authority and INFLUENCE. We generally don't allow relationships between bosses and employees or teachers and students because in the inherent disproportionate power of both.
That to me is a far better argument than 'pedos bad, hate hate.' I personally say 'child abuse and molestation bad, regardless of the sexual attraction involved.'
you and Hearthshine, when you make a post it's always interesting and ask a lot of questions. I have to say it's quite interesting and there's was some really good debat in the comments section and good arguments in both sides so I'm probably going to save this in my favorites.
5560933
I argue too much. I think I'm going through quora withdrawals. I used to argue for days on that damned site.
Wow, I just decided on a whim to check out Somberās blog not really expecting anything new only to realize that there has been an update just yesterday.And then I read the blog andā¦ wow again! Didnāt expect it to be about such a sensitive topic.
The smart choice would be to not write a reply and instead watching some cat videos. Because this discussion will first get emotional, then inevitable get derailed and end with lots of people being angry at each other.
But my brain doesnāt feel smart today and I could never resist the temptation of writing another comment far longer than necessary.
Sorry Somber, but I have to disagree. In Pen and Paper RPGs āItās what my character would do!ā is often used as excuse by certain Players to be assholes ala āIām going to kill the inn keeperās daughter, rape her corpse and set the tavern on fire BECAUSE ITāS WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!ā Assuming the rest of the group isnāt into this type of playstyle they would probably response with: āWell then youāre playing a shitty character. Make a different one or leave the group.ā
Of course, that comparison is flawed, because Pen and Paper is a group effort and your story is your work. You can write whatever you want and people who donāt like it are free to ignore your work. But to say you had no other choice because thatās what the character would do still comes across as a weak excuse.
Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to write this scene. Nobody paid you to write this scene. Itās your work, your characters, your setting. Youāre the god of the story. In fact, for this scene to take place in the first place there had to be some very specific requirements: Bastard had to be part of the crew and literally everypony else except for Blackjack, Scotch and Bastard had to die. Feels like it was a lot harder to set up the chain of events that lead to the sex scene than writing something else.
Easier solution: Bastard had died, too. Then back home Scotch couldāve tried to seduce somepony else but said character refused and told Blackjack about it. Or Bastard couldāve survived but turned out to not be a complete asshole and refused to have sex with Scotch because she isnāt thinking clearly.
Now I havenāt read that part yet. In fact, it will probably a long time before I reach this part. Maybe the scene makes perfect sense and feels like the best option. But as a writer you are responsible for what you write. So please donāt hide behind āThatās what the characters would do! I'm totally blameless!ā
Okay I needed to get that out of my system. But for what itās worth: My opinion of you hasnāt changed in the slightest. I still think you are a great writer who puts lot of efforts into his stories. Iām aware that this was part harsh and I donāt blame you for getting mad at me.
So, do you use a speech-to-text device or are you writing Homelands with your eyes closed?
Okayā¦ Now letās talk about the elephant in the room.
Abusing children is pretty high on my list of utterly despicable things. Therefore, Iām not a fan about stories including fictional children having sex with adults. Even if said children are talking horses. Itās understandable that this too much for many people.
Then again, I have a fetish for mind control. And if Iām entirely honest, thatās also a pretty horrible thing in RL. Sure, we donāt have magic, but drugs, gaslighting and emotional manipulate still exists. Maybe getting turned on by this makes me a horrible person, but I hope Iām not.
At the end of the day this is entirely fictional. No real person is harmed by rape fics, foal con or any other kind of smut from the depths off the Internet. Unless said fic is used to mook victims or to promote this kind of stuff in Real Life. In which case the author of said story is a terrible human being who should be looked up.
Now there was a time were sex with children was no big deal. There was also a time where people of color couldnāt enter the same restaurants as white people. There was also a time where women had to be subservice to their husband. There was also a time where gays had to be cured via lobotomy. Some of these things are still happening today. Doesnāt mean that these are good things.
For me itās morally wrong to have sex with children. Itās one the same level as making someone drunk or blackmailing them into sleeping with you. You are taking advantage of someone else to satisfy your own selfish desires. They can claim that he/she agreed to it all they want, it just makes them pathetic people trying to tell themselves that they arenāt rapists.
That said, fictional underage horses donāt strike me as the kind of thing one should get upset about. I doubt that itās going to turn people into pedophiles. Then again, Iām no psychologist, so what do I know?
Anyways, itās getting pretty late at the place where I live. So Iām going to hit the hay now. Have a good day/night everyone.
5560959
So for the first part. "You are in charge of these characters." Yes. Technically you are correct. In execution, you are not. So I had plans for everyone to die. Blackjack has to leave Scotch to die alone in the tram. She flies back. Does the thing. Done.
Blackjack would never, ever, have left Scotch to die. She would die first. So that's non-tenable. So Rampage saves Scotch and Blackjack. Scotch and Blackjack are in the rocket. Scotch is hurt. She is pissed. She is going to lash out. She's going to tell Blackjack she hates her. Blackjack hates herself too. ...so where does the story go from here? How do I fix this? Do I have Scotch just magically have a change of heart before the end? Say I finagle scotch trying to screw another guy. There it literally an hour or so from arriving back on Eqqus to doing things. The window of action is super tight. So just extend the window. Well now the urgency isn't as tight. Plus I have to shoehorn in this resolution when I'm trying to tie other things and set the stage for the final chapter. Could I have Scotch do nothing? Well sure, but that's implying that something inside her is REALLY broken. Think of what would happen to Scotch psychologically if she watched her father die, then watched Blackjack die hours later. Let's say she tried it and Bastard said no. Well now it's not a problem. The fucked up thing didn't happen, so Blackjack doesn't need to worry about it. It can be blown off. Why not just have Blackjack talk it out with Scotch? Because Blackjack has Luna soul in her now, and Luna avoids direct conflict, and Blackjack not dealing with it is a way to show the effect of Luna's soul.
When we were editing this, we talked about it for hours. The only time where we had a window of time that wasn't rushed was in the rocket. The only people who could be in the rocket were people who were on the moon. And the exchange had to be something that would basically grab Blackjack by the mane and say "See this? DEAL WITH IT." And so she does. Because anything else and the time just wouldn't work. I needed the last chapters to tie up the events of the war for the hoof, the scene with Celestia and Luna talking, Blackjack's moment alone when she's lost nearly everything, and finally going in to face the Eater.
Bastard was a messy solution to a complex problem. It's easy to say "Make the characters do whatever you want" but I'm pretty sure you would not have forgiven me leaving Scotch Tape dying alone on the moon.
(incidentally, when I have a player say their character is going to do psychopathic stuff, I ask them why and force them to acknowledge that they're being ass hats. I have literally made the innkeeper a polymorphed brass dragon to kill such a player, because they can pull dipshit actions out of their ass, but I can say the innkeeper is a brass dragon.)
As to your second point,
YUP. Pretty much agree. :)
5560747
1. Again: a few shitty pony stories won't start the Fourth Reich. This site doesn't have the viewership. No offense, knighty.
2. I don't know where you pull this shit out of your ass, but the studies show differently. You can say what you want, you really can, but that does not mean it is rooted in fact. The cdc and most .gov agree that it is mainly caused by rebellion then learned behavior. It's just the facts, dude. Die on a different hill.
Source: https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/helping-teens-quit/why-kids-start-smoking#:~:text=Peer%20pressure%E2%80%94their%20friends%20encourage,tactics%20to%20specifically%20target%20teenagers.
3. Yes, propaganda works. I didn't think this needed to be defended... and really? Your argument for everything prior hinges on this being a thing. Tobacco uses propaganda -- propaganda of these shitty pony stories causes everyone to start to diddle children. Really confusing and contradictory cross to die on... but, okay.
Edit: I started smoking for rebellion. Lived experience does not a fact make, but a fact it be anyways so imma throw this here anyways.
There is a whole shitstorm I have to catch up on, but for now I'm going to bed. Before I leave I have to mention how happy I am to see an update from you on yourself and that Homelands isn't on hold (unlike the thing I said I was going to do). Which I will, but at first I plan to read about 1.5M words and then reread Homelands.
As for the drama. I totally agree with you in every aspect. No, not because I'm fanboying. It just happens that we have the same opinions.
5560986
1. I'm not saying the Fourth Reich will start on FimFic specifically. Stop strawmanning. My point is that inviting pedos (or Nazis) into your community and tolerating their recruitment propaganda is going to get you a community with pro-pedophilia (or pro-Nazi) propaganda in it, definitionally. Since we've agreed that propaganda works, and since there's pretty wide consensus that Nazis and pedos hurt people, I don't see how it's contentious to say that tolerating this presence gets people hurt, or at least poses some risk of it.
I'm just saying, I'd rather my My Little Pony fanfiction community, of all places, not become a hunting ground prowled by predatory or abusive individuals looking for opportunities to promote or act out their fucked up ideas that are eventually going to hurt someone.
2. I'm not pulling anything out of anywhere. Your own source lists the same reasons *I* stated for why kids start smoking:
"Their parents are smokers." (equatable to prevalence in the existing culture a kid lives in)
"The tobacco industry has used clever marketing tactics to specifically target teenagers." (I cited advertising)
"The price is rightāin places where low tobacco taxes have kept the price down, it is easier for kids to afford cigarettes." (access to cigarettes, just like I said)
"Nicotine is a "feel-good" drug without intoxication." (got this one, too)
It also lists rebellion and peer pressure. Sure, those might be factors for some people, but I seriously doubt it's the whole picture you're trying to paint it as, and the source you cited doesn't list the relative importance of each reason. Also notable is that they had to stretch to find a way to basically say "peer pressure" twice ("Peer pressureātheir friends encourage them to try cigarettes and to keep smoking." and "They think that everyone else is smoking and that they should, too.") to make it sound like a bigger part than it probably actually is.
3. More strawmanning. No response needed. Glad we agree propaganda works, though.
5561004
1. You made a philosophical argument about how our community could cause a great leap forward in facist extremist. I claimed that wasn't feasible with the membership and... come on, common sense.
2. Dose makes the poison. Yes, your reason contributes, but more often then not it is social stigma, as per my source, as the main and underlining cause. Cherry picking is a wonderful family activity, but tends to harm an argument when you take more then two seconds to look at the facts.
3. The only strawman is in the cornfield behind your backwoods thinking. (Also, you keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means.) Propaganda only works on people who are supseptable to said beliefs. Basically: it's gonna happen anyways. Better in a community of pony fans then in an office with a loaded .45. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Meaning, a community as purely based as this is probably the easiest place to find the extremists and deal with them on and one on one basis. I mean, seiously: we all know who the fuckheads are and where they hide here.
5561041
Where? Quote me on this or stop making false claims about my arguments. This is yet another strawman from you.
Got ANY quantification evidence to validate that claim? Because your own source doesn't even mention "social stigma" in the discussion paragraphs below the bullet list of contributing factors, while it DOES specifically address tobacco marketing campaigns as being specially important by providing a link to another article devoted specifically to that factor.
For example, your attempt to use a source that turns out to be harmful for your own argument when someone takes more than two seconds to actually read it would illustrate that, yes.
The arrogance of thinking you're immune to propaganda is a large part of what makes it so effective. No one who thinks they're in total control of their own mind could ever admit that maybe someone else is able to change it. Clearly, you yourself are so immune to the bad-faith propaganda used by these people to garner knee-jerk uncritical sympathy through their hypocritical appeals to your values of free speech that you're totally not fighting right here, right now, in this very thread to keep the door open for them to propagandize further--
Oh, wait. Oops.
Ahhh, yes, appeal to fatalism. You know, because your house is going to burn down anyway, someday, on a long enough timeline, so I guess you might as well just set it on fire now and get it over with. Makes perfect sense.
I offer a radical third option: how about neither?
Oooooh, I see. You're against banning any type of story content, because "but the freeze peaches! Sunlight is the best disinfectant!" and so forth, but you're all for the notion that it's "easy to find the extremists and deal with them," whatever that totally 100% non-threatening and surely completely benign vague allusion means.